gb hill
Veteran
Whether you call it a glow or just flair you can't deny there is something special about older Leica lenses. I even remember an artical in the UK version of Black&White a couple years back by Roger & Frances on the Leica glow. So Leica flair, Leica glow, I like it, so I want to see it.

gb hill
Veteran
gb hill
Veteran
All with a 50 Elmar 3:5 (1946)

Penzes
Well-known
Quite nice rendering. Rigid Summicorn is simply great! 

Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
NathanJD
Well-known
Version 1 Elmarit 90/2.8 folowed by Collapsible 50 cron. i love them! nothing compares to this look
.


Last edited:
NathanJD
Well-known
In fact i think my old 90/2.8 Elmarit even has Leica glow in colour

ampguy
Veteran
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
While I do agree with your point/observation, I would suggest that the description can apply to a variety of early lenses - from quite a few different manufacturers!Whether you call it a glow or just flair you can't deny there is something special about older Leica lenses. I even remember an artical in the UK version of Black&White a couple years back by Roger & Frances on the Leica glow. So Leica flair, Leica glow, I like it, so I want to see it.
Dave.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
While I do agree with your point/observation, I would suggest that the description can apply to a variety of early lenses - from quite a few different manufacturers!
Dave.
Dear Dave,
Indeed. One of the points we made, as far as I recall, was that the 'glow' was at least partly down to overexposure with guessed exposures. Also, cynically, to the fact that people who could afford them often bought Leica lenses once they had become good enough photographers to persuade themselves that they were worth the money. The 'glow' was the photographer, not the lens.
And there's less absolute rubbish around from Leica than from some of their erstwhile competitors.
Cheers,
R.
Mackinaw
Think Different
....One of the points we made, as far as I recall, was that the 'glow' was at least partly down to overexposure with guessed exposures.
Back when I was on LUG, one of the contributors made the comment that the Leica glow was due to nothing more than "uncorrected lens aberrations." Probably more true than most of us think.
Jim B.
Last edited:
gb hill
Veteran
Hey! I'm not biased, post whatever you got from whatever lens you have.While I do agree with your point/observation, I would suggest that the description can apply to a variety of early lenses - from quite a few different manufacturers!
Dave.
gb hill
Veteran
Roger you should go back into your archives & dig that article out. I believe it was a summicron you & Frances had (can't remember) but I do remember the article said the lens was so good for the Leica glow you guys would fuss over who used it. I also remember Francis usually won!Dear Dave,
Indeed. One of the points we made, as far as I recall, was that the 'glow' was at least partly down to overexposure with guessed exposures. Also, cynically, to the fact that people who could afford them often bought Leica lenses once they had become good enough photographers to persuade themselves that they were worth the money. The 'glow' was the photographer, not the lens.
And there's less absolute rubbish around from Leica than from some of their erstwhile competitors.
Cheers,
R.
gb hill
Veteran
Whatever it is I can't explain, but I know the elmar gives me a look that I can't get with any of my voigtlander or other lenses!Back when I was on LUG, one of the contributors made the comment that the Leica glow was due to nothing more than "uncorrected lens aberration." Probably more true than most of us think.
Jim B.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Back when I was on LUG, one of the contributors made the comment that the Leica glow was due to nothing more than "uncorrected lens aberration." Probably more true than most of us think.
Jim B.
That's what I think, too.
Glow from a 40/2.0 M-Rokkor CLE:

Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger you should go back into your archives & dig that article out. I believe it was a summicron you & Frances had (can't remember) but I do remember the article said the lens was so good for the Leica glow you guys would fuss over who used it. I also remember Francis usually won!![]()
Dear Greg,
You may be conflating two articles here. We have only two Summicrons (75 and 90) and Frances rarely uses either; we got rid of the 50 and 35 long ago, because neither of us cared for them much. In ay case, our tastes in focal lengths are quite divergent: the only lens we fought over, the WATE, we couldn't afford.
Unfortunately it would take hours to dig out the magazine, in a VERY cold storage room (I've just moved the studio inside and the storage into the old studio), and the text was on an old computer that died, so I'd have to go through stacks of Wordstar floppies to find it that way.
As far as I recall, we said that although there did seem to be a 'Leica glow', there had to be a substantial rational component as well as the mystical part.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
How about some Nikon glow .... the lens that came on my black dial S2 is pretty glowy though not so sharp!
50mm f1.4 sc
50mm f1.4 sc

LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I can get what you call glow from my canon 50mm 1.2 too
Especially in portraits with yellow filter...
Especially in portraits with yellow filter...
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.